On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 09:46:52AM -0700, Jason Garrett-Glaser wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 8:16 AM, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 03:42:55PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> >> Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 02:56:30PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> >> >> Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> > anyway, this is really becoming a problem now slowly, you cannot every day
> >> >> > attack me with lies, insults or trolling behind my back on irc and still be a
> >> >> > member of the project, this is not at all a threat from me as leader
> >> >>
> >> >> I do not recognise you as a leader. ?A leader is someone who sets a
> >> >> good example for others to follow, someone other can place their trust
> >> >> in, someone who has been chosen, by voting or consensus, to be the
> >> >> leader. ?A leader is not someone who shows blatant contempt for the
> >> >> very rules he wants others to follow, nor is he someone who has
> >> >> simply assumed the title.
> >> >
> >> > Iam always trying to follow the rules i expect others to follow.
> >> > Its you who does break the rules continuously and claim others break them.
> >> > Just your commit 1 minute ago r25286 is a good example
> >> > you make whatever change you want to code actively maintained by others and
> >> > even though a discussion and disagreement exists at the very time.
> >> > Rule or not its expected to discuss controversal changes especially if the
> >> > maintainer is against them before commiting.
> >>
> >> Fixing a forgotten #include is hardly controversial.
> >
> > its not forgotten its unneeded and i said so
> > common.h includes several headers and these do not need to be included
> > everywhere.
> > But that was just one commit, there was the 1->3rd person change (full of
> > bugs due to the automated replacing you did) never approved by anyone and
> > never posted for review. and the removial of part of the symbol versioning
> > documentation against the explicit wish of the maintainer. And thats just
> > what i remembetr atm.
> > not to mention threatening people with closing their accounts and closing
> > jasons account.
>> Just because Mans does stupid things doesn't exempt you from public
> discussion of your patches before they are committed.
no but IMHO this change didnt need more public discussion
The assert issues have been discussed a long time ago with IIRC very low
interrest by people, this also means the basic design has been discussed
previously and there was noone against ...
and it was changes to code i maintain (libavutil) and i had and have no reason
to belive anything of it being controversal. And in such cases "the rules"
say commit without patch is ok, this has always been done that way, the
maintainers can change their code without patches if theres no reason
for them to belive that anything is controversal.
[...]
--
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
Awnsering whenever a program halts or runs forever is
On a turing machine, in general impossible (turings halting problem).
On any real computer, always possible as a real computer has a finite number
of states N, and will either halt in less than N cycles or never halt.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20101001/ac88a114/attachment.pgp>